Gay Marriage

[surritter]

Because it shows Christian compassion. But you will say that is not rational, even if Jesus was gay, which he might have been.

So we can do anything that might be considered immoral, as long as we do it for the reason of compassion? Are you prepared to fully defend that sentiment?

Or another rational argument is that all people are better off in a committed relationship with all that it entails. ( BTW the procreation argument doesn’t apply to this since it doesn’t apply to traditional marriage either.)

What do you mean by the procreation statement? It’s been established that procreation DOES have a vital role in the definition of traditional marriage.

 

[cjellis27]

I am having such a problem reconciling my Catholic faith with the opposition of Gay Marriage. I understand the natural law argument, and what our faith teaches… but in my heart of hearts I am compassionate to the gay movement.
God created us all, depressed, illuminated, saintly, gay (same sex attracted- whichever you please), mentally retarded, man, woman, diseased, enlightened, one and all. If God created one gay man who finds another gay man and they fall in love, how can this be wrong to deny them marriage? God is love. If two people that he created fall in love and commit themselves to one another, this seems to affirm Jesus’ message.
No, they are not able to allow for the procreative nature of the marital union. But, neither is the cancer afflicted, chemo treated wife and her husband or a couple who try as they may remain infertile. We allow these brothers and sisters in Christ to marry and for that matter, to adopt.
Promiscuity… Abortion… I’m right there with our Catholic faith. These do not bring us closer to God. But a committed, loving marriage should cause us happiness no matter the sex of the couple joined.
As to the argument that allowing gay marriage would lead to others wanting to marry animals, plants, or three other partners, this is folly. We are allowing God’s chosen children men and women, to choose their one partner and marry, and nothing else.
I don’t want to be considered a “cafeteria Catholic,” one who picks and chooses what she believes-- but, in my heart I feel Jesus would agree, and his Church should follow suit.

 

[chessmane4e5]

First of all God didn’t just create men and women. He created men, women and hermaphrodites and people who are neither nor.

Physical Deformities are unfortunate indeed, and hopefully science is or will be able to help these people. The same goes for Homosexual behavior, maybe someday science will be able to help.

Unfortunately in the past society and all religions treated people with uncommon attributes as deformed and unordered.

While agree we should learn from our past mistakes, and not treat these people as “less than a person”, we also need to be careful that we are not making a big mistake, namely the belief that homosexual behavior is normal.

That includes our church which by the way also considered slavery OK, also the church that treated mental illness such as depression as demonic possession. Support for the existence of slavery is very strongly found in Paul and the OT, so perhaps critical consideration is called for when those sources are used as defense of any issue that may have a different slant if considered from Jesus’ viewpoint of treating the least like they may be He.

The Church has made mistakes, no one denies this.

As for slavery, you need to look at the OT. Slavery was voluntary. If I owed you a debt, I could sell myself into your service for a set time, upon which you would consider my debt paid. This is the kind of slavery the Church was involved in early on.

As for the Enslavement of people based on race, I do not believe the Catholic Church promoted this at all (correct me if I am wrong). Of course, bringing up Slavery is a strawman, unless you can show how slavery is connected to homosexuality.

You are a little bit more on track to bring up that the Church did associate Demonic Possession with all sorts of mental disorders, but can you hold them accountable today? If you do, then you must also hold the scientific community accountable for “bleeding” patients as an attempt to cure them. Both practices seem silly today, but at the time it was thought to be the best thing to do. Might the Church be wrong about homosexual behavior? Seems unlikely, as this is a moral question.

As to Chess…Saying "Can you at least formulate a logical, rational, argument why marriage should include the same sex? "

Because it shows Christian compassion. But you will say that is not rational, even if Jesus was gay, which he might have been.

Would giving heroin to a drug addict be considered Christian compassion? Allowing homosexuals the “right” to marry, is only telling them it is okay to sin. This is as far from Christian compassion as you can get. They might “feel” happier here on earth, but we all need to pray that God will forgive them in the next life.

Or another rational argument is that all people are better off in a committed relationship with all that it entails. ( BTW the procreation argument doesn’t apply to this since it doesn’t apply to traditional marriage either.)

Not if that committed relationship is dysfunctional. I can also refer you to my previous answer as well. I disagree that homosexuals will be better off.

As for the polygamy argument we need to consider that the Bible was OK with it when it involved Abraham Jacob David among others . So they were also adulterers too.

I think you are confusing polygamy with Adultery. But Abraham actions were considered venial because Sarah gave him permission (still a sin though as he should have trusted in God). I can not recall anything that Jacob did that resembled polygamy, and David’s sin was adultery with Bathsheba.

I do have sympathy and compassion for anyone dealing with sin: whether it is same sex attraction, drug addiction, anger, pride, jealousy. Everyone has their own cross to bear and as Christians we should look to help our brothers and sisters with their burdens. But in my opinion, saying that Gay Marriage is okay is like telling anyone that sins, that it is okay. We need to tell people to repent of their sins and ask forgiveness from the Lord, for that is why Jesus died on the cross for us.

 

[portarica]

But recall that we are talking about the design of the person. Not disorders from that design. This is no slam on people that suffer from hermaphroditic conditions since they haven’t chosen it, but it must be recognized that that is not a condition in accord with the design of the human body, right?

The reality of history is that there have always been hermaphrodites, so to say that God designed people only to be perfect and traditionally viewed men and women is false ,unless you feel that all life is not a design of God.

We don’t know the wisdom or scope of God’s designs, but we do know that Jesus did say to treat the least like they may be He. So can we treat all people as if they may be He and treat Jesus in the guise of the unordered as if He is not part of God’s design?

Because if we treat people who are not of the right right design differently, then we are treating Jesus differently than those we treat those of the right design.

So with your argument, it would then flow that we can treat an unconventionally designed fetus differently than one of the right design. So is the treatment of those that are different wrong or is your argument wrong?

Peace

 

[buffalo]

The reality of history is that there have always been hermaphrodites, so to say that God designed people only to be perfect and traditionally viewed men and women is false ,unless you feel that all life is not a design of God.

We don’t know the wisdom or scope of God’s designs, but we do know that Jesus did say to treat the least like they may be He. So can we treat all people as if they may be He and treat Jesus in the guise of the unordered as if He is not part of God’s design?

Because if we treat people who are not of the right right design differently, then we are treating Jesus differently than those we treat those of the right design.

So with your argument, it would then flow that we can treat an unconventionally designed fetus differently than one of the right design. So is the treatment of those that are different wrong or is your argument wrong?

Peace

Jesus does not call us to treat all behaviors equally. No matter the weakness we are all called to journey to the cross.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I am having such a problem reconciling my Catholic faith with the opposition of Gay Marriage. I understand the natural law argument, and what our faith teaches… but in my heart of hearts I am compassionate to the gay movement.

Good, we should feel compassion for all people that are trapped in sin.

God created us all, depressed, illuminated, saintly, gay (same sex attracted- whichever you please), mentally retarded, man, woman, diseased, enlightened, one and all. If God created one gay man who finds another gay man and they fall in love, how can this be wrong to deny them marriage?

I think this is where I diverge. God did not create anyone to be Gay. This would be like saying God create Hilter to be crazy. God does create all our souls, but our bodies and minds are of this world. Which means people can be born deformed, but it is not that God created them that way. Also remember that Biology and Environment work together to make a person what they are (nature vs. nurture)

God is love. If two people that he created fall in love and commit themselves to one another, this seems to affirm Jesus’ message.

God is love, but what is love?

* Agápe (αγάπη agápē) means "love" in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo (Σ'αγαπώ), which means "I love you". In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection rather than the attraction suggested by "eros". Agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard. Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love.

* Éros (έρως érōs) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "(romantic) love;" however, eros does not have to be sexual in nature. Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than the philia, love of friendship. It can also apply to dating relationships as well as marriage. Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. It should be noted Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." Plato also said eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. The most famous ancient work on the subject of eros is Plato's Symposium, which is a discussion among the students of Socrates on the nature of eros.

* Philia (φιλία philía) means friendship in modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philos denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.

* Storge (στοργή storgē) means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.

* Thélema (θέλημα thélēma) means "desire" or "will" in ancient and modern Greek. It is the desire to do something, to be occupied, or to be in prominence. In the Lord's prayer, "Let thy will be done" is Genetheto to thelema sou.

Eros love is the love that is reserved for Man and Woman. But every human deserves to have all the other kinds of love in their life.

No, they are not able to allow for the procreative nature of the marital union. But, neither is the cancer afflicted, chemo treated wife and her husband or a couple who try as they may remain infertile. We allow these brothers and sisters in Christ to marry and for that matter, to adopt.

This is a common argument. The key is not that they are “currently” able to make a baby, but more that they were the ones originally designed to make a baby. By unfortunate circumstances, all those examples you gave, are unable (although God has performed miracles) to make a baby. Same sex couples on the other hand, were never designed to make a baby.

Promiscuity… Abortion… I’m right there with our Catholic faith. These do not bring us closer to God. But a committed, loving marriage should cause us happiness no matter the sex of the couple joined.

So you do not see homosexual sex acts as sin? I suggest reading the book in my signature, and see if that changes your mind.

 

[surritter]

The reality of history is that there have always been hermaphrodites, so to say that God designed people only to be perfect and traditionally viewed men and women is false ,unless you feel that all life is not a design of God.

But again, you are failing to see the point: We are talking about the purposes of sexuality by its design. Hermaphrodism doesn’t have a purpose in sexuality. It’s an aberration. I didn’t say those people don’t deserve respect.
You keep talking about fairness and how we treat people. That’s fine. I am talking about the function of marriage, and you can’t come up with one other than it’s only fair to include homosexuals. So I ask again: What is the purpose of marriage?

So with your argument, it would then flow that we can treat an unconventionally designed fetus differently than one of the right design. So is the treatment of those that are different wrong or is your argument wrong?

We treat everyone with respect and dignity. Someone with an “unconventional design” is of course included in that. But they can’t do things that are physically impossible, right? If a man wants to conceive and bear a child, would you say it’s “unfair” or treating him “differently” to deny him that right? Of course not – it’s impossible.
Same with homosexual marriage. A marriage by definition is intimately tied with the reproduction of the race. You fail to acknowledge that, so all you can fall back on is “fairness” and “feelings.” So I’ll ask again: What is the purpose of marriage?

 

[portarica]

Good, we should feel compassion for all people that are trapped in sin.

I think this is where I diverge. God did not create anyone to be Gay. This would be like saying God create Hilter to be crazy. God does create all our souls, but our bodies and minds are of this world. Which means people can be born deformed, but it is not that God created them that way. Also remember that Biology and Environment work together to make a person what they are (nature vs. nurture)

God is love, but what is love?

Eros love is the love that is reserved for Man and Woman. But every human deserves to have all the other kinds of love in their life.

This is a common argument. The key is not that they are “currently” able to make a baby, but more that they were the ones originally designed to make a baby. By unfortunate circumstances, all those examples you gave, are unable (although God has performed miracles) to make a baby. Same sex couples on the other hand, were never designed to make a baby.

So you do not see homosexual sex acts as sin? I suggest reading the book in my signature, and see if that changes your mind.

First of all you not acknowledge that the science on sexuality is more developed than it was thousands of years ago.

You are using the same arguments that were developed by people who thought that the spilling of sperm was spilling little miniature babies on the ground.

It also ignores the fact that the Greek who you use for definitions used to kill the deformed and unordered.

As for the Hitler thing you use Paul for your anti gay arguments yet Paul said all (meaning ALL) authority comes from God and we have to listen those in authority. So Paul was a supporter of the legitimate power of Hitler. ( now Paul didn’t want to tick off the Romans so he used to butter them up before he spoke, so Paul either trying to trick the Romans or he was trying to trick us, were his prefaces false or was the body of his writing false?)

As for creating gays or not, it appears that God did. There have been gays forever and tons of them in the church. If it was purely just a choice then all the gay clergy would have stopped being gay years ago.

Even the church position of loving the homosexual but hating the sin implys the existence of homosexuality is something more than a choice.

And the Greek concept of eros applied to more than just man/ women love.

As for unordered people, God didn’t create them that way? Who did? Who knew hoe certain combinations of genes under certain conditions would produce certain outcomes. If not God who?

Your arguments stem from conclusions that don’t hold water.

Peace

 

[surritter]

I am having such a problem reconciling my Catholic faith with the opposition of Gay Marriage. I understand the natural law argument, and what our faith teaches… but in my heart of hearts I am compassionate to the gay movement.
God created us all, depressed, illuminated, saintly, gay (same sex attracted- whichever you please), mentally retarded, man, woman, diseased, enlightened, one and all. If God created one gay man who finds another gay man and they fall in love, how can this be wrong to deny them marriage? God is love. If two people that he created fall in love and commit themselves to one another, this seems to affirm Jesus’ message.
No, they are not able to allow for the procreative nature of the marital union. But, neither is the cancer afflicted, chemo treated wife and her husband or a couple who try as they may remain infertile. We allow these brothers and sisters in Christ to marry and for that matter, to adopt.
Promiscuity… Abortion… I’m right there with our Catholic faith. These do not bring us closer to God. But a committed, loving marriage should cause us happiness no matter the sex of the couple joined.
As to the argument that allowing gay marriage would lead to others wanting to marry animals, plants, or three other partners, this is folly. We are allowing God’s chosen children men and women, to choose their one partner and marry, and nothing else.
I don’t want to be considered a “cafeteria Catholic,” one who picks and chooses what she believes-- but, in my heart I feel Jesus would agree, and his Church should follow suit.

If you’ve read all the posts in this thread, you should realize that marriage is not just a certification of two people who love each other. Its very definition is also tied up in the procreation function and the raising of a family. While not all marriages are called to be fecund, it’s still true that the purposes of marriage are ingrained with that function.

Please think about the purpose of marriage – why should the government be in the business of certifying marriages? If it’s merely for love, then it really isn’t that ridiculous to seek “marriages” of three or four people, right? So the Church teaches that marriage also has to do with biology. Don’t you agree that one of the main purposes of sex is reproduction?

Now you mention those that are unable to reproduce for various reasons ranging from cancer to infertility. Yes, those folks suffer from various maladies or situations which make sex or fertility impossible. Yet their personhood is still ordered toward procreation by their very bodies. Homosexual couples can be in perfect health yet their personhood can never be ordered to procreation.

So many people fail to see this today. It all started with contraception. And there is a little bit of Manichaeism in there too: people subconsciously think that the body is just a temporary vehicle and under that our souls are all the same. Catholics believe that our sexuality is not just genitals, but an important part of our whole selves.

Don’t give up, Cjellis! There are reasons why the Church teaches things. Trust that it is true even if you don’t yet understand it. That doesn’t have to be blind faith, but keep asking and reading things like “Good News about Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West.

 

[chessmane4e5]

First of all you not acknowledge that the science on sexuality is more developed than it was thousands of years ago.

You are using the same arguments that were developed by people who thought that the spilling of sperm was spilling little miniature babies on the ground.

It also ignores the fact that the Greek who you use for definitions used to kill the deformed and unordered.

As for the Hitler thing you use Paul for your anti gay arguments yet Paul said all (meaning ALL) authority comes from God and we have to listen those in authority. So Paul was a supporter of the legitimate power of Hitler. ( now Paul didn’t want to tick off the Romans so he used to butter them up before he spoke, so Paul either trying to trick the Romans or he was trying to trick us, were his prefaces false or was the body of his writing false?)

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.

As for creating gays or not, it appears that God did. There have been gays forever and tons of them in the church. If it was purely just a choice then all the gay clergy would have stopped being gay years ago.

I am not saying it is a conscious choice. God does not create anything that is bad, but what happens to people? Original sin. There have been lot’s of “bad” people throughout history, but they were not “created bad”. Something went wrong in their development, maybe biologically or maybe environmentally or maybe both.

Hitler is an extreme example, maybe I should have used Manson, or even just the guy who beats his wife. Clearly these are sinners, and I would not say “by choice” as in they woke up one day and said to themselves “let’s do something evil today.” But they did choose to do what they did. Just as a homosexual can choose to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex, or they can choose not to. Just as I can choose to commit adultery or not.

Speaking of which, what do you think of Tiger Woods? Should we just say, “Oh well he was born that way, we should support him.” No, we should say “This man needs helps, clearly something is not right.”

Even the church position of loving the homosexual but hating the sin implys the existence of homosexuality is something more than a choice.

All sin has an element of choice. The Same Sex Attraction is not a choice (as far as they wake up one day and decide to be gay) but acting on the same sex attraction is a choice.

And the Greek concept of eros applied to more than just man/ women love.

You’re right, because the Greeks engaged in homosexual behavior. But it was regulated. If a man was married to a woman, and had kids, then it was okay for him to have a male “lover” usually a young man. If that young man though, never got married and only wanted to pursue other men, he would be ostracized as this was viewed as wrong. But that is not important here, because we are not in Greece and We are Christians.

As for unordered people, God didn’t create them that way? Who did? Who knew hoe certain combinations of genes under certain conditions would produce certain outcomes. If not God who?

God creates the soul of the person, but not the body. The body is pretty much random (if you want to call it that). I am the product of my parents. Had my mom drank alcohol while I was in the womb, I would be much different today. Maybe she should have taken more vitamins.

Your arguments stem from conclusions that don’t hold water.

Well beside just claiming that my arguments do not hold water, might you refute them?

This is going to be tough to do because as of right now, their is just as much science to back up that homosexuals are born that way, as there is that they are not born that way.

As for the religious side, clearly homosexual acts are sinful. God created Man and Woman to fit together. It is true that because of original sin, males and females are born with or acquire disabilities that prevent them from making children, but this is not the same as 2 males or 2 females who want to engage in sexual acts. They were just not made for this. Same as males were not made to carry the baby for 9 months.

Now you have given me 2 arguments for why to allow gay marriage, which I think I refuted, but you have not refuted that God created man and woman to be together, which is my argument.

 

[portarica]

If you’ve read all the posts in this thread, you should realize that marriage is not just a certification of two people who love each other. Its very definition is also tied up in the procreation function and the raising of a family. While not all marriages are called to be fecund, it’s still true that the purposes of marriage are ingrained with that function.

Please think about the purpose of marriage – why should the government be in the business of certifying marriages? If it’s merely for love, then it really isn’t that ridiculous to seek “marriages” of three or four people, right? So the Church teaches that marriage also has to do with biology. Don’t you agree that one of the main purposes of sex is reproduction?

Now you mention those that are unable to reproduce for various reasons ranging from cancer to infertility. Yes, those folks suffer from various maladies or situations which make sex or fertility impossible. Yet their personhood is still ordered toward procreation by their very bodies. Homosexual couples can be in perfect health yet their personhood can never be ordered to procreation.

So many people fail to see this today. It all started with contraception. And there is a little bit of Manichaeism in there too: people subconsciously think that the body is just a temporary vehicle and under that our souls are all the same. Catholics believe that our sexuality is not just genitals, but an important part of our whole selves.

Don’t give up, Cjellis! There are reasons why the Church teaches things. Trust that it is true even if you don’t yet understand it. That doesn’t have to be blind faith, but keep asking and reading things like “Good News about Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West.

Are you talking about Marriage in the Catholic Church or Civil Marriage?

If the church says two gay people can’t get married in the church, they can’t.

But if you are saying two gay people can’t get married according to Massachusetts law , then you are wrong.

Massachusetts Laws

MGL c.207. Marriage. The same laws and procedures that govern traditional marriage also apply to same-sex marriages. There are no special procedures for a same-sex marriage.

So if you use as arguments Greek history, shouldn’t you also acknowledge the existence of more recent history?

Even the church changes , the popes no longer believe that cats are the devil incarnate though they said so in the past.

Its time for our church to be courageous, we say all these outside influences weaken what we do. That’s pretty wimpy.

Peace

 

[surritter]

Are you talking about Marriage in the Catholic Church or Civil Marriage?

If the church says two gay people can’t get married in the church, they can’t.

But if you are saying two gay people can’t get married according to Massachusetts law , then you are wrong.

Massachusetts Laws

MGL c.207. Marriage. The same laws and procedures that govern traditional marriage also apply to same-sex marriages. There are no special procedures for a same-sex marriage.

So if you use as arguments Greek history, shouldn’t you also acknowledge the existence of more recent history?

Even the church changes , the popes no longer believe that cats are the devil incarnate though they said so in the past.

Its time for our church to be courageous, we say all these outside influences weaken what we do. That’s pretty wimpy.

Peace

Portarica, I’ve already addressed the point you are bringing up.

Regarding Massachusetts: They are calling it marriage. But does that make it one?

Your thinking indicates that when something is NAMED as an item, it automatically BECOMES that item. Do you find this logical?

By the way, can you explain the function or purpose of a marriage? Why there is even such a thing?

 

[portarica]

You say it all started as contraception?

Look, the church has a policy called NFP, it is contraception. If you don’t want to have babies say it. If the intention is to deceive it is a lie.

If you want to have babies you take your temp and have sex on the days when you are fertile, if you do the converse you are trying to not have babies.

Part of the problem is that when it comes to sex the church’s way of dealing with it is to not talk honestly about it.

Peace

 

[surritter]

You say it all started as contraception?

Look, the church has a policy called NFP, it is contraception. If you don’t want to have babies say it. If the intention is to deceive it is a lie.

If you want to have babies you take your temp and have sex on the days when you are fertile, if you do the converse you are trying to not have babies.

Part of the problem is that when it comes to sex the church’s way of dealing with it is to not talk honestly about it.

Peace

Sorry I should have said artificial contraception, which did indeed pave the way to the culture’s current thinking that nothing is wrong with homosexual “marriage.” And we can certainly get into artificial contraception if you would like (although there are numerous other threads on that where you can learn more about what our Church teaches).

So what is the purpose of marriage?

 

[chessmane4e5]

You say it all started as contraception?

Look, the church has a policy called NFP, it is contraception. If you don’t want to have babies say it. If the intention is to deceive it is a lie.

If you want to have babies you take your temp and have sex on the days when you are fertile, if you do the converse you are trying to not have babies.

Part of the problem is that when it comes to sex the church’s way of dealing with it is to not talk honestly about it.

Peace

NFP is not contraception WHEN use morally.

You are right, and if someone uses NFP that way, they are sinning just as someone who uses condoms or the pill (maybe less so, but it is a sin).

You are comparing apples and oranges.

NFP is natural, or how God designed the bodies.

Contraception is erecting a physical or chemical barrier that prevents pregnancy.

IF NFP is used selfishly, then yes the end result is the same.

You really do need to read Theology of the Body by John Paul II or Good News About Sex & Marriage by Christopher West, so you have a better understanding of this topic.

 

[portarica]

Sorry I should have said artificial contraception, which did indeed pave the way to the culture’s current thinking that nothing is wrong with homosexual “marriage.” And we can certainly get into artificial contraception if you would like (although there are numerous other threads on that where you can learn more about what our Church teaches).

So what is the purpose of marriage?

Actually calling it ABC doesn’t change it in the eyes of the church. All contraception is prohibited.

What are the purposes of marriage, they are are myriad.

Lets separate out the sex thing first since it doesn’t occupy much time. What do married people do with most of their time?
Give birth to kids.

Care for kids?

Save on taxes?
Cuddle while watching TV.

Love God.

Go to church as couple.

etc. etc.

Lets list some things that you can do if you aren’t married.

Give birth to kids.

care for kids.

Be a priest.

Love God.

Go to church as couple.

Do you see any similarities?

Peace

 

[portarica]

NFP is not contraception WHEN use morally.

You are right, and if someone uses NFP that way, they are sinning just as someone who uses condoms or the pill (maybe less so, but it is a sin).

You are comparing apples and oranges.

NFP is natural, or how God designed the bodies.

Contraception is erecting a physical or chemical barrier that prevents pregnancy.

IF NFP is used selfishly, then yes the end result is the same.

You really do need to read Theology of the Body by John Paul II or Good News About Sex & Marriage by Christopher West, so you have a better understanding of this topic.

If you are not actually trying to have kids then you are trying to not have kids.

NFP is basically a way of saying its OK to try to not have kids as long as you “say” you are not trying to have kids. Its the type of contraceptive program that Bill Clinton would come up with. What do you mean by “is”?

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

If you are not actually trying to have kids then you are trying to not have kids.

NFP is basically a way of saying its OK to try to not have kids as long as you “say” you are not trying to have kids. Its the type of contraceptive program that Bill Clinton would come up with. What do you mean by “is”?

True, people can say that, and only God knows what is in their hearts. If they are using NFP as a contraceptive, then they are sinning.

But simply because some people may abuse this method, does not negate it.

NFP is the only way for a Christian to be faithful to their wedding vows of “I Do”.

 

[portarica]

True, people can say that, and only God knows what is in their hearts. If they are using NFP as a contraceptive, then they are sinning.

But simply because some people may abuse this method, does not negate it.

NFP is the only way for a Christian to be faithful to their wedding vows of “I Do”.

Its the only way to sin without sinning.

Its the free pass to sex without saying you don’t want to be pregnant. Its like buying a life insurance policy.

Its a construct to get around an inconvenience.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

Its the only way to sin without sinning.

Its the free pass to sex without saying you don’t want to be pregnant. Its like buying a life insurance policy.

Its a construct to get around an inconvenience.
Peace

No it is nothing like that.

If it was, then all sex would be sin. But sex is not a sin. Selfishness is a sin. If my wife and I only had sex during her infertile times, because we already had our perfect boy and a girl family, then yes that is a sin. But if because of health complications or our financial situation, or all sorts of factors, we are waiting to have more children, that is just being responsible, but still in a loving way. Honestly, how wrong is it to use a condom (an unnatural physical barrier between spouses) or use the pill (a chemical contraceptive that forces a woman body to menstruate and if that doesn’t work aborts the baby). Can you honestly say those acts are loving?

Sex and Children are not inconveniences (well they might be viewed that way by people who contracept).

NFP is anything but a free pass to sex. By practicing NFP I have grown closer to my wife, as communication is a large part of it (it is more than just taking a temperature). Every time we “renew our wedding vows” it means so much more, than when we used to use condoms (yes, early in our marriage we used them, and now we totally regret it). So I have seen both sides of this issue and can speak of both sides personally. I suggest you really learn about NFP, read the book in my signature, and see if you feel the same.

I guarantee if you read that book, your views on Gay Marriage will also change.